Transonic Analysis of Wavy Leading Edge

EFFECT OF WAVY LEADING EDGE ON LIFT AND DRAG OF A WING AT
TRANSONIC SPEEDS
Supervised by: Dr Jae Wook Kim
by
JAYA VIGNESH MADANA GOPAL
MSc Aerodynamics and Computation
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENT
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES
September 2017
This thesis was submitted for examination in September, 2017. It does not
necessarily represent the final form of the thesis as deposited in the University after
examination.
I, JAYA VIGNESH MADANA GOPAL declare that this thesis and the work presented
in it are my own and has been generated by me as the result of my own original
research.
I confirm that:
1. This work was done wholly or mainly while in candidature for a degree at this
University;
2. Where any part of this thesis has previously been submitted for any other
qualification at this University or any other institution, this has been clearly stated;
3. Where I have consulted the published work of others, this is always clearly
attributed;
4. Where I have quoted from the work of others, the source is always given. With the
exception of such quotations, this thesis is entirely my own work;
5. I have acknowledged all main sources of help;
6. Where the thesis is based on work done by myself jointly with others, I have made
clear exactly what was done by others and what I have contributed myself;
7. None of this work has been published before submission.

Acknowledgement
I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr Jae Wook Kim for guiding me through this
interesting project. Thanks to his expertise in Aerodynamics has made it possible for
me to complete this project.
I would like to thank my parents for supporting me financially and emotionally and
my girlfriend being on my side throughout the completion of my project.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ i

Table of Tables ....................................................................................................................v
Table of Figures ................................................................................................................. ix
Definitions and Abbreviations .................................................................................... 1
Abstract…... ........................................................................................................................... 2
Chapter 1 Literature Study........................................................................................... 3
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................... 3

1.2 Drag on Airfoil................................................................................ 4
1.2.1 Pressure drag .......................................................................... 4

1.2.2 Skin friction drag ..................................................................... 6
1.2.3 Wave drag................................................................................ 6
1.3 Shock waves - Normal and Oblique ................................................. 7

1.4 Transonic flow on airfoil ................................................................. 9
1.5 Shock wave – Boundary layer interaction....................................... 11
1.6 Wave drag reduction at transonic speeds...................................... 14
1.7 Studies on Wavy Leading Edges .................................................... 16
1.8 Computational Fluid Dynamics ..................................................... 17
1.8.1 Equations for viscous flow (Navier-Stokes equations) ............. 18
1.8.1.1 Continuity equations ....................................................... 18

1.8.1.2 Momentum equations ..................................................... 18
1.8.1.3 Energy equation .............................................................. 19
1.8.2 Equations for inviscid flow (Euler equations) .......................... 20
1.8.2.1 Continuity equation ......................................................... 20

1.8.2.2 Momentum equations ..................................................... 20
1.8.2.3 Energy equation .............................................................. 21
1.9 Research objectives ...................................................................... 21
Chapter 2 Experimental Setup ................................................................................. 23
2.1 CFD Software ................................................................................ 23
i
Table of Contents
2.2 Wing geometry ............................................................................. 23

2.3 Experimental Procedure................................................................ 24
2.3.1 Method of project execution .................................................. 24

2.3.2 2D Inviscid Analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil .............................. 25
2.3.2.1 Geometry ........................................................................ 25

2.3.2.2 Mesh ............................................................................... 25
2.3.2.3 Model setup .................................................................... 27
2.3.2.4 Solver .............................................................................. 28
2.3.3 3D Inviscid analysis of straight and wavy leading edge wing

based on NACA 0012 airfoil .............................................. 29
2.3.3.1 Geometry ........................................................................ 29

2.3.3.2 Mesh ............................................................................... 31
2.3.3.3 Model setup .................................................................... 32
2.3.3.4 Solver .............................................................................. 34
2.3.4 2D Viscous Analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil .............................. 35
2.3.4.1 Model setup .................................................................... 35

2.3.4.2 Solver setup .................................................................... 37
2.3.5 3D viscous analysis of straight and wavy leading edge wing

based on NACA 0012 airfoil .............................................. 38
2.3.5.1 Model setup .................................................................... 38

2.3.5.2 Solver .............................................................................. 40
Chapter 3 Results: Inviscid analysis ..................................................................... 43
3.1 2D Inviscid Analysis of NACA 0012 .............................................. 43
3.1.1 2D Inviscid Analysis of NACA 0012 at 0 º angle of attack....... 43
3.1.1.1 Lift and Drag coefficient study ........................................ 43

3.1.1.2 Grid refinement study ..................................................... 45
3.1.1.3 Data validation ................................................................ 47
3.1.2 2D Inviscid Analysis of NACA 0012 at 2º angle of attack........ 48
ii
Table of Contents
3.1.3 2D Inviscid Analysis of NACA 0012 at 4 º angle of attack....... 53

3.1.3.2 Grid Refinement study ..................................................... 56
3.2 3D Inviscid Analysis of wavy and straight leading edge wings based
on NACA 0012 airfoil ................................................................... 58
3.2.1 3D Inviscid Analysis of wavy and straight leading edge wings

based on NACA 0012 airfoil at Mach 0.8 and 0 º angle of
attack................................................................................ 58
based on NACA 0012 airfoil at 2º angle of attack .............. 64
based on NACA 0012 airfoil at 4º angle of attack .............. 71
3.3 2D Viscous Analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil .................................... 77
3.3.1 2D Viscous Analysis of NACA 0012 at 0 º angle of attack ...... 77

3.4 3D Viscous analysis of wavy and straight leading edge wings based
on NACA 0012 airfoil ................................................................... 81
3.4.1 3D Viscous analysis of wavy and straight leading edge wings

based on NACA 0012 airfoil at 0 º angle of attack ............. 81
3.4.2 3D Viscous analysis of wavy and straight leading edge wings
based on NACA 0012 airfoil at 2 º angle of attack ............. 87
Chapter 4 Further Analyses....................................................................................... 93
4.1 3D Inviscid analysis of straight and wavy leading edge wing based on
NACA 0012 airfoil at Mach 1.2 and 0º angle of attack .................. 94
4.2 3D Inviscid analysis of straight and wavy leading edge wing based on
KC-135 BL200.76 airfoil ............................................................... 99
iii
Table of Contents

based on KC-135 BL200.76 airfoil at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of
attack................................................................................ 99
attack.............................................................................. 104
attack.............................................................................. 110
Chapter 5 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 117

Chapter 6 Future work .............................................................................................. 118
List of References ......................................................................................................... 119
iv
Table of Tables
Table of Tables
Table 1: Model setup for 2D inviscid analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil ............... 27
Table 2: Boundary conditions implemented on 2D inviscid analysis of NACA 0012

airfoil...................................................................................... 27
Table 3: Solver setup for 2D inviscid analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil ............... 28
Table 4: Model setup for 3D inviscid flow of straight and wavy leading edge wing
based on NACA 0012 airfoil .................................................... 32
Table 5: Boundary conditions implemented on 3D inviscid analysis of straight and

wavy leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil .............. 33
Table 6: Solver setup for 3D inviscid analysis of straight and wavy leading edge
wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil ........................................... 34
Table 7: Model setup for 2D viscous analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil ............... 35
Table 8: Boundary conditions implemented on 2D viscous analysis of NACA 0012

airfoil...................................................................................... 36
Table 9: Solver setup for 2D viscous analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil................ 37
Table 10: Model setup for 3D viscous flow of straight and wavy leading edge wing
based on NACA 0012 airfoil. ................................................... 38
Table 11: Boundary conditions implemented on 3D viscous analysis of straight and

wavy leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil .............. 39
Table 12: Solver setup for 3D viscous analysis of straight and wavy leading edge
wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil ........................................... 40
Table 13: Results of drag and lift coefficient at various Mach numbers for 2D
Inviscid NACA 0012 airfoil at 0º angle of attack. ..................... 43
Table 14: Grid refinement study of 2D inviscid CFD analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil at
Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of attack.............................................. 46
v
Table of Tables
Table 19: Results of drag and lift coefficient for inviscid analysis of straight and
wavy leading edge wings based on NACA 0012 airfoil at Mach 0.8
and 0º angle of attack............................................................. 58
viscous analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil at 0º angle of attack. .... 78
Table 23: Grid refinement study of 2D viscous analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil at
Table 24: Results of drag and lift coefficient for viscous analysis of straight and
and 4º angle of attack...................Error! Bookmark not defined.
vi
Table of Tables
wavy leading edge wings based on KC-135 BL200.76 airfoil at Mach
0.8 and 0º angle of attack....................................................... 99
0.8 and 2º angle of attack..................................................... 105
vii
Table of Figures
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Streamlines on a finite wing (Anderson, 2017, p. 427) ...................... 4
Figure 2: Wing tip vortices (Anderson, 2017, p.428) ........................................ 5
Figure 3: Impact of downwash on flow near the airfoil section (Anderson, 2017,
p.429) ...................................................................................... 5
Figure 4: (a) Displacement thickness of boundary (hatched area) representing an

effective change in airfoil shape (boundary – layer thickness is greatly
exaggerated). (b) Pressure distribution on an airfoil section in viscous
flow (dotted line) and inviscid flow (Houghton, 2013, p.49) ...... 6
Figure 5: Typical normal shock, oblique shock, and Mach wave pattern in supersonic
flow past a blunt body. M is the Mach number and V is the particle
speed. The curved line parallel to normal and oblique shock waves
indicates the end of the velocity vectors. (McGraw-Hill, 2004) ... 8
Figure 6: Shock waves produced by blunt bodies (left) and pointed bodies (right).
(Allan and Eggers, 1958) ........................................................... 8
Figure 7: Transonic flow pattern (U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Aviation

Administration and Flight Standards Service, 2004) .................. 9
Figure 8: Schematic of transonic flow over an airfoil. (a) Freestream flow slightly
below the speed of sound, typically a subsonic freestream Mach
number from about 0.8 to 0.999. (b) Freestream flow slightly above
the speed of sound typically a supersonic freestream Mach number
from 1.0 to 1.2 (“Transonic flow” n.d) ..................................... 10
Figure 9: Variation of drag coefficient with Mach number (U.S Department of

Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration, 2003)..... 11
Figure 10: Schematic of the shock-wave-boundary-layer interaction (Anderson,

2017, p. 670) ......................................................................... 12
Figure 11: Diagram of normal shock wave - boundary layer interactions at transonic
speeds in (a) turbulent flow (b) laminar flow (Moulden, 1984, p. 298)
.............................................................................................. 13
ix
Table of Figures
Figure 12: General structure of normal shockwave - boundary layer interaction for
turbulent flow at transonic speeds (Moulden, 1984, p. 302).... 13
Figure 13: Large separation induced by the interaction of the shock wave with
turbulent boundary layer (Moulden, 1984, p. 303) .................. 14
Figure 14: Pressure distribution over a supercritical airfoil compared with a NACA
64-series airfoil at cruise conditions (Anderson, 2017, p. 776) 15
Figure 15: Round tubercles seen on the leading edge of front flippers. ......... 16
Figure 16: Wing geometry ............................................................................. 23
Figure 17: Geometry involving airfoil and domain for 2d analysis .................. 25
Figure 18: Completed 2d mesh for NACA 0012 airfoil ................................... 26
Figure 19: Close up of the mesh showing the refinement near the airfoil ....... 26
Figure 20: 3d model of wavy leading edge wing of span 1m .......................... 30
Figure 21: View of the nose of the wavy leading edge wing ........................... 30
Figure 22: Dimensions of the domain boundaries for 3D analysis of wavy leading
edge wing ............................................................................... 30
Figure 23: Domain for the 3D analysis of wavy leading edge wing. ................ 31
Figure 24: Unstructured mesh generated for the 3D domain. ........................ 31
Figure 25: Close up of the mesh on the wing surface showing the refinement and
the nodes on the contour........................................................ 32
Figure 26: contours of static pressure for an inviscid flow over NACA 0012 airfoil at
Mach 0.6(left), Mach 0.7(right) and 0 º angle of attack. ........... 44
Figure 27: contours of static pressure of inviscid flow over NACA 0012 airfoil at
Mach 0.8(left), Mach 0.9(right) and 0 º angle of attack. ........... 44
Figure 28: Contours of static pressure of inviscid flow over NACA 0012 airfoil at
Mach 1.0 and 0 º angle of attack............................................. 45
x
Table of Figures
Figure 29: 1st refinement (left) and 2nd refinement (right) of NACA 0012 airfoil at
Mach 0.8 and 0 º Angle of Attack for Inviscid CFD analysis by
gradient adaptation ................................................................ 46
Figure 30: Comparison of Inviscid 2d CFD results with experimental results done at
various Reynolds numbers of NACA 0012 airfoil. .................... 47
Mach 0.6(left), Mach 0.7(right) and 2º angle of attack ............. 49
Mach 0.8(left) and Mach 0.9(right) at 2º angle of attack .......... 49
Mach 1 and 2º angle of attack................................................. 50
Figure 34: Regions of supersonic flow in an inviscid flow over NACA 0012 airfoil at
Mach 0.6(left), Mach 0.7(right) and 2º angle of attack. ............ 50
Figure 36: 1st (left), 2nd (middle) and 3rd (right) grid refinement by gradient
adaptation for inviscid flow over NACA 0012 airfoil at Mach 0.8 and 2
º angle of attack ..................................................................... 52
Mach 0.6(left), Mach 0.7(right) and 4deg angle of attack. ........ 54
Mach 0.8(left), Mach 0.9(right) and 4deg angle of attack ......... 54
Mach 1.0 and 4deg angle of attack ......................................... 55
Mach 0.6(left), Mach 0.7(right) and 4 º angle of attack ............ 55
Mach 0.8(left), Mach 0.9(right) and 4 º angle of attack ............ 56
xi
Table of Figures
Figure 42: 1st (left), 2nd (middle) and 3rd (right) grid refinement of NACA 0012
airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 4º angle of attack.. 57
Figure 43: Contours of static pressure over a 1m section of an infinite span straight
leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for an inviscid flow at
Figure 44: Contours of static pressure over the surface for a 1m section of an
infinite span straight leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil
for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of attack............ 60
Figure 45: Regions of supersonic flow over a 1m section of an infinite span straight
Figure 46: Contours of static pressure over a 1m section of an infinite span wavy
Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of attack. The waviness in the contours
observed here are due to the wavy leading edge ..................... 61
Figure 47: Contours of static pressure over the surface of a 1m section of an infinite
span wavy leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for an
inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of attack. The waviness in the
contours are seen here due to the wavy leading edge. ............ 61
Figure 48: Regions of supersonic flow over a 1m section of an infinite span wavy
Figure 49: Distribution of flow with max Mach numbers in the supersonic flow
region over a 1m section of an infinite span straight leading edge
wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and
0º angle of attack. .................................................................. 63
region over a 1m section of an infinite span wavy leading edge based
on NACA 0012 airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of
attack. .................................................................................... 64
xii
Table of Figures
Figure 52: Contours of static pressure over the top surface of a 1m section of an
for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 2º angle of attack. The picture in
right displays the contours from minimum static pressure at the top
surface of wing to the maximum static pressure at the top surface of
the wing. ................................................................................ 66
Figure 53: Contours of static pressure over the bottom surface of a 1m section of
an infinite span straight leading edge wing based on NACA 0012
airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 2º angle of attack. The
picture in right displays the contours from minimum static pressure
at the bottom surface of wing to the maximum static pressure at the
bottom surface of the wing. .................................................... 66
infinite span wavy leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for
an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 2º angle of attack. The picture in
surface to the maximum static pressure at the top surface. .... 68
right displays the contours from minimum static pressure at the
bottom surface to the maximum static pressure at the bottom
surface. .................................................................................. 68
xiii
Table of Figures
wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and
2º angle of attack. .................................................................. 70
region over a 1m section of an infinite span wavy leading edge wing
based on NACA 0012 airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 2º
angle of attack. ....................................................................... 70
for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 4º of attack. The picture in right
displays the contours from minimum static pressure at the top
an infinite span straight leading edge wing based on NACA 0012
airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 4º angle of attack. The
picture in right displays the contours from minimum static pressure
at the bottom surface top the maximum static pressure at the bottom
surface ................................................................................... 73
edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach
0.8 and 4º angle of attack....................................................... 73
xiv
Table of Figures
an infinite span wavy leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil
for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 4º angle of attack. The picture in
surface to the maximum static pressure at the bottom surface.75
region over the airfoil for a straight leading edge wing based on
NACA 0012 airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 4º angle of
attack. .................................................................................... 76
region over the airfoil for a wavy leading edge wing based on NACA
0012 airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 4º angle of attack.
.............................................................................................. 77
Figure 71: Contours of static pressure of viscous flow over NACA 0012 airfoil at
Mach 0.8(left), Mach 0.9(right) and 0º angle of attack. ............ 79
Mach 1 and 0º angle of attack................................................. 79
Figure 74: comparison of contours of static pressure of viscous (left) and inviscid
(right) flow over NACA 0012 airfoil at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of attack
.............................................................................................. 80
xv
Table of Figures
leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for a viscous flow at
Figure 76: Contours of static pressure over the surface of 1m section of an infinite
span straight leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for a
viscous flow at Mach 0.8 and 0 º angle of attack. .................... 83
span wavy leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for a
viscous flow at Mach 0.8 and 0 º angle of attack. .................... 85
wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for a viscous flow at Mach 0.8 and
0 º angle of attack. ................................................................. 86
based on NACA 0012 airfoil for a viscous flow at Mach 0.8 and 0º
angle of attack. ....................................................................... 87
Figure 84: Contours of static pressure over the top surface of 1m section of an
xvi
Table of Figures
for a viscous flow at Mach 0.8 and 2º angle of attack. The picture in
Figure 85: Contours of static pressure over the bottom surface of 1m section of an
for a viscous flow at Mach 0.8 and 2 º angle of attack. The picture in
surface. .................................................................................. 89
a viscous flow at Mach 0.8 and 2 º angle of attack. The picture in
a viscous flow at Mach 0.8 and 2 º angle of attack. The picture in
surface. .................................................................................. 91
region over a 1m section of an infinite span straight (left) and wavy
xvii
Table of Figures
(right) leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for a viscous
flow at Mach 0.8 and 2 º angle of attack. ................................ 93
span straight leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for an
inviscid flow at Mach 1.2 and 0 º angle of attack. .................... 95
span wavy leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for an
inviscid flow at Mach 1.2 and 0 º angle of attack. .................... 97
wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for a viscous flow at Mach 1.2 and
0 º angle of attack. ................................................................. 98
based on NACA 0012 airfoil for a viscous flow at Mach 1.2 and 0 º
angle of attack. ....................................................................... 98
Figure 100: Contours of static pressure over a 1m section of an infinite span

straight leading edge wing based on KC-135 BL200.76 transonic
airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 0 º angle of attack.100
xviii
Table of Figures
infinite span straight leading edge wing based on KC-135 BL200.76
transonic airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 0 º angle of
attack. .................................................................................. 100
Figure 102: Regions of supersonic flow over a 1m section of an infinite span

airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of attack.101
leading edge wing based on KC-135 BL200.76 transonic airfoil for an
inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of attack. ................... 101
infinite span wavy leading edge wing based on KC-135 BL200.76
transonic airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of
attack. The picture in the right displays the contours from the
minimum static pressure at the top surface to the maximum static
pressure at the bottom surface. ............................................ 102
minimum static pressure at the bottom surface to the maximum
static pressure at the bottom surface. ................................... 102
inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 0 º angle of attack. .................. 103
wing based on KC-135 BL200.76 airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach
xix
Table of Figures
based on KC-135 BL200.76 airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8

and 0º angle of attack........................................................... 104
Figure 109: Contours of static pressure over a 1m section of an infinite span


xx
Table of Figures
Figure 116: Regions of supersonic flow over a 1m section of an infinite wavy

region over a 1m section of an infinite span straight (left) and wavy
(right) leading edge wing based on KC-135 BL200.76 airfoil for an

xxi
Table of Figures

region over a 1m section of an infinite span and wavy leading edge
xxii
Definitions and Abbreviations
𝐴𝐴 Amplitude
𝐶𝐶 Chord
𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷 Drag coefficient of wing
𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑 Drag coefficient of airfoil
𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 Lift coefficient of wing
𝐶𝐶𝑙𝑙 Lift coefficient of airfoil
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
𝑓𝑓 Body force
𝑀𝑀 Mach number
𝑝𝑝 Pressure
𝑡𝑡 Time
𝑢𝑢 Component of velocity in x direction
𝑽𝑽 Velocity vector
𝑣𝑣 Component of velocity in y direction
𝑤𝑤 Component of velocity in z direction
𝜏𝜏 Shear stress
𝜌𝜌 Density
𝛾𝛾 Specific gas constant
𝜆𝜆 Wavelength
1
Abstract
The effect of wavy leading edge on the lift and drag at transonic speeds was analysed
using CFD in the hopes of reducing drag on wing without significant loss of lift.
Although in general it did not result in a reduction of wave drag, there was a particular
case which produced the expected decrease in drag and increase in lift to drag ratio.
However this needs to be further analysed to ensure effective implementation in
commercial aircrafts. Nonetheless the wavy leading edge resulted in reduction of
viscous drag. In spite of the wavy leading edge on symmetrical airfoil NACA 0012
resulting in increased wave drag and decreased viscous drag, the wavy leading edge
on the transonic KC-135 BL200.76 airfoil resulted in wave drag in one specific case.
This wavy leading edge on KC-135 BL200.76 airfoil can potentially result in a decrease
of viscous drag, which in turn would produce a significant net decrease in drag.
2
Chapter 1 Literature Study
1.1 Introduction
Modern commercial jet aircrafts fly at transonic speeds where Wave drag on the wing
is one of the important drag phenomena affecting the cruise speed of modern
commercial jets. Thus, reducing the wave drag on the wing enables us to push our
cruise speeds further without increasing fuel consumption by delaying drag
divergence Mach number. Many geometrical modifications (i.e. making the airfoil
thinner, increasing the sweep angle or using a specially designed airfoil such as
supercritical airfoil) are utilised to reduce the drag on the wing at transonic speeds.
Another such geometrical modification, which is analysed in this project, is the wavy
leading edge. Many numerical analysis and wind tunnel experiments were done on
wings with wavy leading edges to investigate the effect of wavy leading edge on
manoeuvrability and post stall characteristic. Nevertheless, such experiments were
done at low speeds.
The aim of the study is to test the hypothesis proposed by my project supervisor Dr
Jae Wook Kim, that at transonic speeds, the wavy leading edge may produce three
dimensional wavy shock on the wings instead of the usual two dimensional normal
shock produced on the wings with straight leading edge. These wavy shocks behave
as an oblique shock which when compared to the normal shocks are reduced in
strength, thus having a possibility of reduced wave drag.
This is done through inviscid and viscous CFD analysis of infinite wavy leading edge
wing with 0º sweep angle in ANSYS Fluent and compare it with infinite straight leading
edge wing with 0º sweep angle to see if the wavy leading edge results in the expected
decrease in wave drag by producing a non-normal shock wave above the wing. Also
if the wavy leading edge results in expected decrease of drag, this project will aim to
determine the most effective wavy leading edge geometry by controlling the
amplitude and wavelength of the wave which produces the maximum drag reduction.
3
1.2 Drag on Airfoil
A Drag is the component of aerodynamic force acting on any body in a fluid, opposite
to the motion of the body relative to the flow of the fluid. The total drag on an airfoil
comprises of three main subtypes namely pressure drag, skin friction drag and Wave
drag.
1.2.1 Pressure drag
The pressure drag arises as the result of the aerodynamic force which has a
component opposite to the relative motion of the body with respect to the fluid and
can be further classified into induced drag and form drag.
Wing tip vortices produced at the tips of a finite wing (see Figure 2 below) induce a
downwash which reduces the effective angle of attack, thus reducing lift and the lift
vector tilts backwards introducing a component in the direction of 𝑉𝑉∞ which is the
induced drag (see Figure 3 below). Lift on finite wings cannot exist without this
induced drag and so it is also known as lift – induced drag. Induced drag is an inviscid
phenomenon and does not depend on the viscous forces on a wing.
Figure 1: Streamlines on a finite wing (Anderson, 2017, p. 427)
4
Figure 2: Wing tip vortices (Anderson, 2017, p.428)
Figure 3: Impact of downwash on flow near the airfoil section (Anderson, 2017, p.429)
Form drag results from the viscous forces in a flow. Referring to the Figure 4 below,
in a real flow, the body and the boundary layer has some finite thickness, which
results in flow speed not being 0 at the trailing edge which in turn results in pressure
coefficient being less than +1, whereas the pressure coefficient is +1 at the leading
5
edge. The high pressure region at the nose of the airfoil pushes the airfoil backwards.
Then the suction pressures until the point of maximum thickness pulls the airfoil
forward generating a thrust. The suction pressures after the maximum thickness
pushes the airfoil backwards and generates a retarding force. The relatively high
pressure region at the tail of the airfoil generates thrust. In an inviscid flow these
pressure forces cancel each other resulting in no net drag whereas in a viscous flow
they don’t cancel out completely resulting in a non-zero net force pushing the airfoil
backwards resulting in the form drag.
Figure 4: (a) Displacement thickness of boundary (hatched area) representing an

effective change in airfoil shape (boundary – layer thickness is greatly
exaggerated). (b) Pressure distribution on an airfoil section in viscous flow
(dotted line) and inviscid flow (Houghton, 2013, p.49)
1.2.2 Skin friction drag
Skin friction drag is the result of airfoil surface roughness and viscosity of the air.
The shear stresses due to the viscosity and skin friction acts tangentially at the body
surface and has a component aligned but opposite to the direction of flight. The sum
of the skin friction drag and pressure drag is collectively known as profile drag and
they cannot exist in an inviscid flow.
1.2.3 Wave drag
Wave drag is due to the occurrence of shock waves in high speed flows- transonic and
supersonic. Irrespective of whether the airfoil travels at subsonic or supersonic
speeds if there is a region about an airfoil where the flow is supersonic, then shock
waves exist in such situations and result in wave drag. This type of drag is
independent of viscous effects in the flow.
6
1.3 Shock waves - Normal and Oblique
In supersonic flows on a body Normal shock waves (also known as bow shocks) are
formed detached from the body. As shown in Figure 5 below, the flow immediately
upstream of the Normal shockwave (bow shock) in front of the body is normal to the
flow whereas the bow shock farther from the airfoil is inclined at an angle. Whereas
the oblique shock wave is attached to the body and is inclined at an angle to the
airflow. The static pressure increase across an oblique shock wave is less than the
static pressure increase across a normal shock wave. That is due to the fact that the
ratio of static pressure after a shock to the static pressure upstream of shock is
dependent on the Mach number such that the an increase in Mach number results in
increase in the ratio and since the flow is at an angle relative to the shockwave in an
oblique shock , only a component of velocity or Mach number which is lesser than
the velocity or Mach number of the flow, acts on the shock and thus the static
pressure ratio is lesser than what we obtain in a normal shock wave. And since the
static pressure on the body is related to the drag on the body and is corresponded
with the strength of the shockwave. Oblique shock waves are weaker than the normal
shock waves for similar flow conditions.
𝑝𝑝2 2𝛾𝛾
=1+ (𝑀𝑀2 − 1)
𝑝𝑝1 𝛾𝛾 + 1
Equation 1: Ratio of pressure downstream to pressure upstream of a shock wave
7
Figure 5: Typical normal shock, oblique shock, and Mach wave pattern in supersonic
flow past a blunt body. M is the Mach number and V is the particle speed.
The curved line parallel to normal and oblique shock waves indicates the
end of the velocity vectors. (McGraw-Hill, 2004)
Figure 6: Shock waves produced by blunt bodies (left) and pointed bodies (right).
(Allan and Eggers, 1958)
8
1.4 Transonic flow on airfoil
As soon as the airfoil reaches critical Mach number the local flow speed at one point
(or two points if it is a symmetric airfoil) reaches the speed of sound. As the speed of
the airfoil further increases the supersonic flow regions appear above and/or below
the airfoil and these supersonic regions grow with the increase in speed as shown in
Figure 7 below.
Figure 7: Transonic flow pattern (U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Aviation

Administration and Flight Standards Service, 2004)
Many of the modern commercial aircraft like Boeing 747-400 and Airbus A380 fly
at transonic speeds close to Mach 0.9 and the newer aircrafts in design phase
continuously try to reach as close to Mach 1 as possible for their cruise speeds. At
these speeds, even though most of the airflow around the aircraft is still less than
Mach 1, the flow above and below the airfoil may exceed local sonic speed of Mach 1
giving rise to shocks above and below the airfoil. Note that the shock wave even
though attached to the airfoil is considered as a normal shockwave as the airflow is
normal to this transonic shockwave. During flight at speeds higher than critical Mach
number regions of supersonic flow occur above and below the airfoil which is
terminated by a shock which returns the flow to subsonic speed. As the speeds get
9
closer to Mach 1 the regions of supersonic flow above and below the airfoil grow and
the terminating shocks get stronger resulting in high pressure increase across the
shock wave which results in corresponding increase of drag. And eventually as the
airfoil reaches Mach 1, bow shock forms in front of the nose of the airfoil and trailing
edge shocks form at the tail of an airfoil as shown in Figure 8 below. The whole airfoil
except for a small region on the nose is covered by supersonic flow.
Figure 8: Schematic of transonic flow over an airfoil. (a) Freestream flow slightly below
the speed of sound, typically a subsonic freestream Mach number from
about 0.8 to 0.999. (b) Freestream flow slightly above the speed of sound
typically a supersonic freestream Mach number from 1.0 to 1.2 (“Transonic
flow” n.d)
Typically, the transonic cruise speeds are above the critical Mach number of the
airfoil but below or about the drag divergence Mach number of the airfoil, as after
the Drag divergence Mach number there is a steep increase in drag coefficient until
Mach 1 which is illustrated in the Figure 9 below. After attaining Mach 1 the drag
starts to decrease again. So, designers of modern subsonic commercial turbofan
aircrafts are constantly looking for methods to delay the drag divergence Mach
number to push the cruise speeds further.
10
Figure 9: Variation of drag coefficient with Mach number (U.S Department of
Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration, 2003)
1.5 Shock wave – Boundary layer interaction
Since a shockwave is characterized as a sudden and discontinuous increase in

pressure, when a boundary layer encounters a shockwave, the adverse pressure
gradient of the shockwave causes the boundary layer to separate. The higher pressure
gradient behind the shock travels upstream through the subsonic boundary layer and
causes the boundary layer to separate before the theoretical impingement point of
shockwave in inviscid flow. This causes the supersonic flow to turn into itself inducing
a shockwave shown in the Figure 10 below as induced separation shockwave. The
separated boundary layer eventually reattaches to the surface downstream, which
again causes the supersonic flow to turn into itself causing another shockwave which
is shown in the picture as reattachment shock. Thus in the case of shock impinging
on a viscous surface we get three shocks in total. Between the separation shock and
reattachment shock the supersonic flow is turned away from itself and generates
several expansion waves. In a region away from the surface the separation and
11
reattachment shocks merge to form a conventional reflected shock as the case with
the inviscid flow.
Figure 10: Schematic of the shock-wave-boundary-layer interaction (Anderson, 2017,

p. 670)
In the case of the normal shock on an wing/airfoil at transonic speeds, the

shockwave boundary layer interaction results in the formation of lambda shock as
shown Figures 12, 13 and 14 below, which induces separation and thus reducing
the strength of shock results in a reduced separation as well, thus resulting in a
decrease in drag experienced by the wing/airfoil.
12
Figure 11: Diagram of normal shock wave - boundary layer interactions at transonic
speeds in (a) turbulent flow (b) laminar flow (Moulden, 1984, p. 298)
Figure 12: General structure of normal shockwave - boundary layer interaction for
turbulent flow at transonic speeds (Moulden, 1984, p. 302)
13
Figure 13: Large separation induced by the interaction of the shock wave with
turbulent boundary layer (Moulden, 1984, p. 303)
1.6 Wave drag reduction at transonic speeds
Drag reduction at transonic speeds can be achieved either by increasing the sweep
angle, making the airfoil thinner or designing a specially shaped airfoil. Making the
airfoil thinner has several disadvantages with respect to modern commercial aircrafts
since most of the fuel required for the flight is stored in the wings and making them
thinner results in reduced fuel capacity of the aircraft. One such outcome of adoption
of especially shaped airfoil is the supercritical airfoil which has a relatively flat upper
surface, which results in the supersonic flow region spreading out more and the
terminating shock much weaker. This is illustrated in the Figure 14 below. But since
the top of the supercritical airfoil is flat the forward part of the airfoil has negative
camber which should be compensated by the rear part, this leads to the noticeable
cusp like shape at the bottom surface near the trailing edge. The supercritical airfoil
have their own disadvantages, these supercritical airfoils result in stronger pitching
moments due to the shift of centre of lift backwards and thus the aircraft needs larger
Control surfaces on the wing.
14
Figure 14: Pressure distribution over a supercritical airfoil compared with a NACA 64-
series airfoil at cruise conditions (Anderson, 2017, p. 776)
15
1.7 Studies on Wavy Leading Edges
Figure 15: Round tubercles seen on the leading edge of front flippers.
By observing the geometry of flippers of humpback whales which had round tubercles
on the leading edge of its flippers the idea of wings with wavy leading edges came
into existence. While most of the baleen whales have restricted manoeuvrability,
humpback whales were able to undertake acrobatic turning manoeuvres to catch
prey. It was hypothesized that the round tubercles on the leading edge of its flipper
were responsible for its agility and manoeuvrability in water. Miklosovic, Murray,
Howle and Fish (2004) did wind tunnel experiments of scaled ideal flippers with the
cross section of NACA 0020 symmetrical airfoil with and without tubercles for
calculating lift and drag while varying angle of attack. The experiments which were
performed at Mach numbers corresponding to Mach 0.2 and Reynolds number in the
range of 5.05 × 105 to 5.20 × 105 show that below the angle of attack of 8.5° the lift
curve of scalloped flipper was largely unchanged from that of the smooth flipper
model. But while the 𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 for the scalloped flipper model was lower than that of the
smooth model for the angles9.3 ≤∝≤ 12, it was equal or greater than that of the
smooth models for other angles. Overall the stall angle of the scalloped flipper model
was greater than the smooth model by 40% and the max 𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 was greater by 6%.
Following the above experiment done by Miklosovic et. al (2004), numerical and/or
wind tunnel experiments were done by Lin et al (2013), M.M et al (2013), Serson and
Meneghini, (2015) and Yoon, Hung, Jung and Kim (2011) on airfoils and wings with
wavy leading edges all around the world trying to vary the amplitude and wavelength
of the wavy leading edge of the airfoil. The results of the experiments done at low
Reynolds numbers were not as promising as expected. With the wavy leading edge,
the stall occurred earlier and the 𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 of wings with wavy leading edge was lesser than
16
the 𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 of the wings with smooth prole. But the values of 𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 and 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷 of wings with
wavy leading edges did not show any significant difference compared to the smooth
leading edges at low angles of attack up to 5°. Nevertheless, all the experiments
showed good post stall behaviour of airfoils and wings with wavy leading edges where
the drop in CL was significantly less steeper compared to smooth airfoils and wings.
1.8 Computational Fluid Dynamics
Computational fluid dynamics is the numerical analysis of fluid flow using computer
based simulation. CFD's are widely used in modern Aerospace industry in the
preliminary design of the aircrafts and its components, which are further validated
and refined by using wind tunnel tests. CFD's are useful in the reduction of costs
incurred in the design process by reducing the dependency on wind tunnel tests and
simulation of some experiments which cannot be easily done on wind tunnels such
as supersonic and hypersonic wind tunnel experiments which are extremely
expensive and difficult to simulate. Also the CFD software provides opportunity for
many students and designers to successfully create preliminary designs without
expensive wind tunnels or in some scenarios where wind tunnels are unavailable to
them.
Most of the CFD software use Finite volume method and codes consists of 3
components which are pre-processor, solver and post processor.
Pre-processor: The pre-processor consists of geometry creation, grid generation,

physical criteria which is modelled, defining fluid properties and implementation of
suitable boundary conditions.
Solver: The numerical algorithm of solver involves the implementation of the

governing fluid flow equations over the entire control volume in the domain,
discretisation converting the integral equations into discrete system of algebraic
equations, solving these algebraic equations by iteration.
Post processor: Post processor helps us to manipulate the obtained solutions into
plots, graphs and data for various physical properties of the flow.
17
1.8.1 Equations for viscous flow (Navier-Stokes equations)
In a viscous flow, transport phenomena of friction thermal conduction and/or mass

diffusion are taken into account. These transport phenomena lead to the dissipation
of energy of a flow which results in increase in entropy of the flow. But mass diffusion
is not considered in our governing equations as they are only required when there
are concentration gradients of different chemical species in the flow. Mass diffusion
should be taken into account in the case of hypersonic flows where the extreme
temperature results in dissociation of air and chemical reaction of the constituents of
air. The base of almost all the Computational Fluid Dynamics softwares is this Navier
– Stokes equation which is applicable for single – phase fluids.
1.8.1.1 Continuity equations
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷
+ 𝜌𝜌∇. 𝑽𝑽 = 0
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷
Equation 2: Continuity equation in non-conservative form
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
+ ∇. (𝜌𝜌𝑽𝑽) = 0
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
Equation 3: Continuity equation in non-conservative form
1.8.1.2 Momentum equations
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜏𝜏𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝜕𝜕𝜏𝜏𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝜕𝜕𝜏𝜏𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧

𝜌𝜌 =− + + + + 𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓𝑥𝑥
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
Equation 4: x component of momentum equation in non-conservative form
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜏𝜏𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝜕𝜕𝜏𝜏𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝜕𝜕𝜏𝜏𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧

𝜌𝜌 =− + + + + 𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
Equation 5: y component of momentum equation in non-conservative form
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜏𝜏𝑥𝑥𝑧𝑧 𝜕𝜕𝜏𝜏𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝜕𝜕𝜏𝜏𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧

𝜌𝜌 =− + + + + 𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓𝑧𝑧
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
Equation 6: z component of momentum equation in non-conservative form
18
𝜕𝜕(𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌) 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜏𝜏𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝜕𝜕𝜏𝜏𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝜕𝜕𝜏𝜏𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝜌𝜌 + ∇. (𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝑽𝑽) = − + + + + 𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓𝑥𝑥
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
Equation 7: x component of momentum equation in conservative form

𝜌𝜌 + ∇. (𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝑽𝑽) = − + + + + 𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
Equation 8: y component of momentum equation in conservative form

𝜌𝜌 + ∇. (𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝑽𝑽) = − + + + + 𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓𝑧𝑧
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
Equation 9: z component of momentum equation in conservative form
1.8.1.3 Energy equation
𝐷𝐷 𝑉𝑉 2 𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕(𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢) 𝜕𝜕(𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣) 𝜕𝜕(𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤)

𝜌𝜌 �𝑒𝑒 + � = 𝜌𝜌𝑞𝑞̇ + �𝑘𝑘 � + �𝑘𝑘 � + �𝑘𝑘 � − − − +
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 2 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜕𝜕𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝜕𝜕𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝜕𝜕𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜏𝜏𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝜕𝜕𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜏𝜏𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝜕𝜕𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝜕𝜕𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜏𝜏𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧

+ + + + + + + + + 𝜌𝜌𝒇𝒇. 𝑽𝑽
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
Equation 10: Energy equation in non-conservative form.
𝜕𝜕 𝑉𝑉 2 𝑉𝑉 2 𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕(𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢)

�𝑒𝑒 + � + ∇. [𝜌𝜌 �𝑒𝑒 + � 𝑽𝑽] = 𝜌𝜌𝑞𝑞̇ + �𝑘𝑘 � + �𝑘𝑘 � + �𝑘𝑘 � − −
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 2 2 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜕𝜕(𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣) 𝜕𝜕(𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤) 𝜕𝜕𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝜕𝜕𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝜕𝜕𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜏𝜏𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝜕𝜕𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜏𝜏𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝜕𝜕𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑥𝑥𝑧𝑧

− + + + + + + + +
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜕𝜕𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜏𝜏𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
+ + 𝜌𝜌𝒇𝒇. 𝑽𝑽
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
Equation 11: Energy equation in conservative form.
19
1.8.2 Equations for inviscid flow (Euler equations)
Inviscid flow is a flow where there is no dissipative, transport phenomena of viscosity,

thermal conduction and mass diffusion. Thus, removing the corresponding terms
from Navier – Stokes equation results in Euler equations which are the governing
equations for an inviscid flow.
1.8.2.1 Continuity equation
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷
+ 𝜌𝜌∇. 𝑽𝑽 = 0
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷
Equation 12: Continuity equation in non-conservative form.
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
+ ∇. (𝜌𝜌𝑽𝑽) = 0
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
Equation 13: Continuity equation in conservative form.
1.8.2.2 Momentum equations
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜌𝜌 =− + 𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓𝑥𝑥
Equation 14: x component of momentum equation in non-conservative form
𝜌𝜌 =− + 𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦
Equation 15: y component of momentum equation in non-conservative form
𝜌𝜌 =− + 𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓𝑧𝑧
Equation 16: z component of momentum equation in non-conservative form
𝜕𝜕(𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌) 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜌𝜌 + ∇. (𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝑽𝑽) = − + 𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓𝑥𝑥
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
Equation 17: x component of momentum equation in conservative form
20
𝜕𝜕(𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌) 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜌𝜌 + ∇. (𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝑽𝑽) = − + 𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
Equation 18: y component of momentum equation in conservative form
𝜕𝜕(𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌) 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜌𝜌 + ∇. (𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝑽𝑽) = − + 𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓𝑧𝑧
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
Equation 19: z component of momentum equation in conservative form
1.8.2.3 Energy equation
𝐷𝐷 𝑉𝑉 2 𝜕𝜕(𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢) 𝜕𝜕(𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣) 𝜕𝜕(𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤)

𝜌𝜌 �𝑒𝑒 + � = 𝜌𝜌𝑞𝑞̇ − − − + 𝜌𝜌𝒇𝒇. 𝑽𝑽
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 2 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
Equation 20: Energy equation in non-conservative form.
𝜕𝜕 𝑉𝑉 2 𝑉𝑉 2 𝜕𝜕(𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢) 𝜕𝜕(𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣) 𝜕𝜕(𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤)

�𝑒𝑒 + � + ∇. [𝜌𝜌 �𝑒𝑒 + � 𝑽𝑽] = 𝜌𝜌𝑞𝑞̇ − − − + 𝜌𝜌𝒇𝒇. 𝑽𝑽
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 2 2 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
Equation 21: Energy equation in conservative form.
1.9 Research objectives
This study is done to examine whether our assumption of wavy normal shocks
forming on wings with wavy leading edges holds true and if formed whether these
result in decrease of drag.
The first objective of the project is to examine whether the wavy leading edges on a
straight infinite wing result in wavy normal shocks above and below the airfoil at
transonic speeds, and if they result in reduction of wave drag compared to an infinite
wing with straight leading edge, where both the wings have the same mean
aerodynamics chord for a section with a span of one wavelength. This will be done
by using ANSYS Fluent.
21
The second objective of this study is to determine the most effective amplitude and
wavelength of the wave geometry of the leading edge if the wavy leading edge on an
infinite wing results in appreciable reduction of drag compared to an infinite wing
with straight leading edge.
22
Chapter 2 Experimental Setup
2.1 CFD Software
ANSYS Fluent is used for this Computational Fluid Dynamics experiment, where
ANSYS Design Modeller is used to create geometry, ANSYS Meshing to generate the
mesh.
2.2 Wing geometry
The wing is based on NACA 0012 symmetrical airfoil which is well experimented by
NASA at a broad range of Reynolds numbers and Mach numbers. The wavy leading
edge wing has 0º sweep angle and infinite span. The wavy leading edge wing’s wavy
geometry has an amplitude of 0.05c and wavelength of 0.5c (see Figure 16 below).
Figure 16: Wing geometry
23
2.3 Experimental Procedure
2.3.1 Method of project execution
The Computational fluid dynamics experiment is split into two main parts: inviscid
analysis and viscous analysis.
For the preliminary understanding of pressure distribution and the causes of drag, a
2D inviscid analysis of the NACA 0012 airfoil is carried out and compared with the
experimental results by NASA at various Reynold’s numbers on NACA 0012. The
analysis is done at high subsonic and transonic speeds in the range of Mach 0.6-Mach
1.0. Physically, a 2D airfoil is the same as an infinite wing with no sweep. After
carrying out the CFD analysis at 0 º Angle of Attack, the CFD analysis will be further
carried out low angles of attack from 0º to 4º corresponding to cruise conditions of
a commercial aircraft at transonic speed. Following the 2D inviscid analysis, a 3D
inviscid analysis will be carried out for an infinite wing with straight leading edge and
wavy leading edge. The results of drag and lift coefficients of both the wings at Mach
0.8 will be compared to verify if the wavy leading edge results in reduction of drag
as expected. Also in the inviscid case for an infinite wing the only drag acting on the
wing is the wave drag, so the inviscid analysis will give a better understanding of
whether the wavy leading edge really results in weakened shocks.
Following the inviscid analysis, viscous analysis using Spalart-Allmaras is carried out
to examine the effects of viscosity on the drag and lift coefficients of wavy leading
edge. Foremost a 2D viscous analysis using Spalart-Allmaras is carried out to
understand the viscous effects on wing at transonic speeds especially Shockwave-
Boundary layer interactions. Following the 2D viscous analysis a 3D viscous analysis
is carried out for an infinite wing with straight leading edge and wavy leading edge.
The results of drag and lift coefficients of both the wings at Mach 0.8 will be
compared with each other and also with the inviscid results to get an insight on the
effects of viscosity on drag. Also it should be checked whether the wavy leading edge
results in reduced boundary layer separation and thus a reduction of drag associated
with it.
24
2.3.2 2D Inviscid Analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil
A two dimensional airfoil exhibits the same physical behaviour as that of an infinite
wing, since a two dimensional airfoil does not experience the effects of wingtip
vortices which is also true with that of an infinite wing.
2.3.2.1 Geometry
The required geometry of the airfoil is generated by using coordinates of 1000 points
on the airfoil shape and domain is created in ANSYS Design Modeller as shown in the
Figure 17 below.
Figure 17: Geometry involving airfoil and domain for 2d analysis
2.3.2.2 Mesh
Domain is discretised in ANSYS Meshing and structured mesh is generated. Edge

sizing by specifying no of divisions and bias factor on various edges is done such
that the mesh is more refined near the airfoil and it gradually becomes increasingly
coarse away from the airfoil. The wake region is also significantly refined.
25
Figure 18: Completed 2d mesh for NACA 0012 airfoil
Figure 19: Close up of the mesh showing the refinement near the airfoil
26
2.3.2.3 Model setup
For the 2D inviscid analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil Pressure based solver is chosen.
Since the analysis of this airfoil is at transonic speeds which is in the compressible
regime, Energy equation is turned on and density is chosen as ideal gas as shown in
the Table 1 below.
Table 1: Model setup for 2D inviscid analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil
Setup
Solver Pressure based
Models Energy equation on

Inviscid
Materials Air : Density - Ideal gas
Boundary conditions Table 2
Pressure far field boundary conditions is used at inlet and outlet, which utilises
Riemann invariants to determine the flow variables at the specified boundaries and
airfoil surface is specified as wall, as shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Boundary conditions implemented on 2D inviscid analysis of NACA 0012

airfoil
Boundary conditions
Zone Type Numerical conditions
1 Inlet Pressure – Gauge pressure: 101325

far - field
Mach no: 0.6 - 0.9
X component of flow: cos AOA
Y component of flow: sin AOA
27
2 Outlet Pressure – Gauge pressure: 101325
far - field
Mach no: 0.6 - 0.9
3 Airfoil contact wall

region
4 Above contact Interior

region
5 Below contact Interior

region
6 Upstream Interior
contact region
7 Wake contact Interior

region
2.3.2.4 Solver
Table 3: Solver setup for 2D inviscid analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil
Solution Method – Pressure velocity coupling
1 Scheme Coupled/SIMPLE/SIMPLEC
Spatial-discretisation schemes
1 Gradient Least squares cell based
2 Pressure Second order
3 Momentum Second Order Upwind
4 Turbulent Kinetic Energy Second Order Upwind
28
5 Turbulent Dissipation Rate Second Order Upwind
Residuals
1 Continuity Monitor check,

convergence and
Absolute criteria of 1e-06
2 x-velocity Monitor check,

convergence and
3 y-velocity Monitor check,

convergence and
4 K Monitor check,
convergence and
5 epsilon Monitor check,

convergence and
2.3.3 3D Inviscid analysis of straight and wavy leading edge wing based on
NACA 0012 airfoil
2.3.3.1 Geometry
The geometry for CFD analysis for the straight and wavy leading edge wing is created
using ANSYS Geometry each of them having 1m span. The airfoil is based on the
NACA 0012 and the sections of the profile are created by using coordinates of 1000
points on the airfoil of length 1m and are scaled up and down in both the X and Y
axes to get the required wavy shape such that the mean chord of the wing remains
as 1m. The 3D shape of the airfoil is presented in Figure 20 and 21 below. The 3D
29
domain for the wing is created as shown in Figure 22 below and the dimensions of
the 3D domain is shown in Figure 23 below.
Figure 20: 3d model of wavy leading edge wing of span 1m
Figure 21: View of the nose of the wavy leading edge wing
Figure 22: Dimensions of the domain boundaries for 3D analysis of wavy leading edge
wing
30
Figure 23: Domain for the 3D analysis of wavy leading edge wing.
2.3.3.2 Mesh
An unstructured fine 3d mesh is created for both the wings, and faces parallel to the
ends of the span are matched using match control to make it suitable for applying
periodic boundary conditions at the faces. Face meshing is used to mesh the airfoil
surface to appropriate level of fineness such that the wavy leading edge is well
discretized.
Figure 24: Unstructured mesh generated for the 3D domain.
31
Figure 25: Close up of the mesh on the wing surface showing the refinement and the
nodes on the contour.
2.3.3.3 Model setup
For the 3D inviscid analysis of straight and wavy leading edge based on NACA 0012
airfoil Pressure based solver is chosen. Since the analysis of these wings are at
transonic speeds which is in the compressible regime, Energy equation is turned on
and density is chosen as ideal gas as shown in the Table 4 below.
Table 4: Model setup for 3D inviscid flow of straight and wavy leading edge wing
based on NACA 0012 airfoil
Setup
Inviscid
32
Riemann invariants to determine the flow variables at the specified boundaries. Airfoil
surface is specified as wall. And applying translational periodic boundary condition
across the faces per1 and per2 to simulate an infinite wing results in the following
boundary conditions as shown in the Table 5 being implemented.
Table 5: Boundary conditions implemented on 3D inviscid analysis of straight and

wavy leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil
Boundary Conditions

far - field
Mach no: 0.8

far - field
Mach no: 0.8
3 Airfoil wall
4 Air Interior
5 Per1 Periodic Translational
33
2.3.3.4 Solver
Table 6: Solver setup for 3D inviscid analysis of straight and wavy leading edge
wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil
Residuals

convergence and

convergence and

convergence and
4 K Monitor check,
convergence and
34
convergence and
2.3.4 2D Viscous Analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil
The same mesh which is used for 2D inviscid analysis is retained for the viscous
analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil. The difference is in the model setup where the viscous
analysis uses Spalart-Allmaras method.
2.3.4.1 Model setup
For the 2D viscous analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil, Pressure based solver is chosen.
Since the analysis of this airfoil is at transonic speeds which is in the compressible
regime, Energy equation is turned on and density is chosen as ideal gas as shown in
the Table 7 below.
Table 7: Model setup for 2D viscous analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil
Setup
Viscous – Spalart-Allmaras –
Strain/Vorticity based
Viscosity – Sutherland Law – Three

coefficient method
35
Riemann invariants to determine the flow variables at the specified boundaries. Airfoil
surface is specified as wall. And applying translational periodic boundary condition
across the faces per1 and per2 to simulate an infinite wing results in the following
boundary conditions as shown in the Table 8 being implemented.
Table 8: Boundary conditions implemented on 2D viscous analysis of NACA 0012

airfoil
Boundary Conditions

far - field
Mach no: 0.6 - 0.8
Turbulence Specification method:

Turbulent Viscosity Ratio
Turbulent Viscosity Ratio: 10

far - field
Mach no: 0.6 - 0.8

3 Airfoil wall
36
4 Air Interior
2.3.4.2 Solver setup
Table 9: Solver setup for 2D viscous analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil
Residuals

convergence and

convergence and

convergence and
37
4 K Monitor check,
convergence and

convergence and
2.3.5 3D viscous analysis of straight and wavy leading edge wing based on
NACA 0012 airfoil
The viscous analysis is done using Spalart-Allmaras method at a Reynolds number of

19 × 106 for a Mach number of 0.8. Boundary adaption is implemented on the mesh
used in the inviscid analysis such that the mesh near the wing surface is refined. This
Boundary adapted refined mesh is used as the original mesh for viscous analysis to
take into consideration the effects of boundary layers due to viscosity.
2.3.5.1 Model setup
For the 3D viscous analysis of straight and wavy leading edge wings based on NACA
0012 airfoil, pressure based solver is chosen and Spalart-Allmaras viscous model is
chosen. Since the analysis of these wings are at transonic speeds which is in the
compressible regime, Energy equation is turned on and density is chosen as ideal
gas, as shown in the Table 10 below.
Table 10: Model setup for 3D viscous flow of straight and wavy leading edge wing
based on NACA 0012 airfoil.
Setup
38
Viscous – Spalart-Allmaras –
Strain/Vorticity based
Viscosity – Sutherland Law –

Three coefficient method
Pressure far field boundary conditions is used at inlet and outlet which utilises
Riemann invariants to determine the flow variables at the specified boundaries (see
Table 11 below). Airfoil surface is specified as wall (see Table 11 below). Applying
translational periodic boundary condition across the faces per1 and per2 to simulate
an infinite wing results in the following boundary conditions as shown in Table 11
being implemented.
Table 11: Boundary conditions implemented on 3D viscous analysis of straight and

wavy leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil
Boundary Conditions

far - field
Mach no: 0.8

39
far - field
Mach no: 0.8

3 Airfoil wall
4 Air Interior
2.3.5.2 Solver
Table 12: Solver setup for 3D viscous analysis of straight and wavy leading edge
wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil
Residuals
40
convergence and

convergence and

convergence and
4 K Monitor check,
convergence and

convergence and
41
Chapter 3 Results: Inviscid analysis
3.1 2D Inviscid Analysis of NACA 0012
3.1.1 2D Inviscid Analysis of NACA 0012 at 0 º angle of attack
3.1.1.1 Lift and Drag coefficient study
Inviscid NACA 0012 airfoil at 0º angle of attack.
Mach no 𝑪𝑪𝒍𝒍 𝑪𝑪𝒅𝒅
0.6 0.00084 0.00488
0.7 0.00373 0.00592
0.8 0.00212 0.01361
0.9 0.00004 0.11634
1.0 0.00961 0.10797
It can be clearly observed from the results obtained from inviscid analysis of NACA
0012 airfoil at 0º angle of attack that the drag coefficient suddenly increases with
increase in Mach no which can be attributed to the wave drag.
43
Figure 26: contours of static pressure for an inviscid flow over NACA 0012 airfoil at
Mach 0.6(left), Mach 0.7(right) and 0 º angle of attack.
Figure 27: contours of static pressure of inviscid flow over NACA 0012 airfoil at Mach
0.8(left), Mach 0.9(right) and 0 º angle of attack.
44
Figure 28: Contours of static pressure of inviscid flow over NACA 0012 airfoil at Mach
1.0 and 0 º angle of attack.
Based on the inviscid CFD analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil at 0º angle of attack and
Mach numbers from 0.6 to 1.0, it is observed that after Mach 0.7, supersonic flow
region begins to form above and below the airfoil because it is a symmetrical airfoil
in this case. These supersonic regions are terminated by shocks which bring the flow
back to subsonic velocities. With increasing Mach number these supersonic flow
regions grow and the terminating shocks become stronger. At Mach one we have
shock waves at the nose and tip of the airfoil as the entire airfoil has attained
supersonic velocity.
3.1.1.2 Grid refinement study
Grid refinement is done by gradient adaptation such that the high pressure regions
around the airfoil at that specific Mach number and angle of attack are marked and
refined. A pressure threshold is specified and any regions which have a higher
pressure than the threshold limit are marked and refined. And since this particular
analysis is an inviscid analysis, gradient adaptation is sufficient to refine the results
as wave drag is the only contributor to the total drag in such analysis.
45
Figure 29: 1st refinement (left) and 2nd refinement (right) of NACA 0012 airfoil at
Mach 0.8 and 0 º Angle of Attack for Inviscid CFD analysis by gradient
adaptation
Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of attack
Refinement 𝑪𝑪𝒅𝒅 Chang in 𝑪𝑪𝒅𝒅 𝑪𝑪𝒍𝒍 Chang in 𝑪𝑪𝒍𝒍
Original grid 0.01532 0.00211
1st refinement 0.01075 29.8% 0.00348 39.17%
2nd refinement 0.01007 6.30% 0.00161 53.6%
It can be observed from the grid refinement study of NACA 0012 airfoil for a inviscid
flow that grid independency is almost achieved in the case of drag coefficient,
whereas grid independency could not be achieved in the case of lift coefficient. But
this does not affect our results as the numerical values of lift coefficient are negligibly
small and also from our knowledge that the symmetrical airfoil produces no lift at 0º
angle of attack.
46
3.1.1.3 Data validation
The drag coefficient obtained from the Inviscid CFD analysis of 2D NACA 0012 airfoil
shows the sudden increase of drag after a certain Mach number. This is due to the
wave drag which starts to appear after the speed of airfoil exceeds the critical Mach
number. Comparing the inviscid CFD analysis with various Reynolds numbers as in
Figure 30 below, we can see that the inviscid CFD analysis results agree with the
analogy of inviscid flow as very high (infinite) Reynolds no flow. Until the airfoil
reaches critical Mach number, theoretically there is no drag in the inviscid case, which
corresponds to the very low drag coefficients in the above plot.
Figure 30: Comparison of Inviscid 2d CFD results with experimental results done at
various Reynolds numbers of NACA 0012 airfoil.
47
3.1.2 2D Inviscid Analysis of NACA 0012 at 2º angle of attack
0.6 0.23684 0.00815
0.7 0.26119 0.00921
0.8 0.38822 0.03683
0.9 0.21681 0.12412
1.0 0.18593 0.11533
Based on the inviscid CFD analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil at Mach numbers from 0.6
to 1.0 at 2º angle of attack, it is observed that after Mach 0.6, supersonic flow region
begins to form above the airfoil (see Figure 34 below), and after Mach 0.7 supersonic
flow region begins to form below the airfoil too (see Figure 35 below). These
supersonic regions are terminated by shocks which bring the flow back to subsonic
velocities. With increasing Mach number these supersonic flow regions grow and the
terminating shocks become stronger which can be seen by the pressure contours in
the Figures 31-33 below and also by the regions of supersonic flow in the Figures 34
and 35.
48
0.6(left), Mach 0.7(right) and 2º angle of attack
0.8(left) and Mach 0.9(right) at 2º angle of attack
49
1 and 2º angle of attack
Mach 0.6(left), Mach 0.7(right) and 2º angle of attack.
50
Mach 0.8(left), Mach 0.9(right) and 2º angle of attack
Grid refinement is done by gradient adaptation, which identifies high pressure

regions above the specified threshold for this specific model setup and refines the
cells around this region. Three gradient adaptations were done by reducing the static
pressure threshold consecutively. Since the shocks are formed only on the upper
surface of the airfoil at Mach 0.8 and 2º angle of attack as the airfoil is incident to
airflow at an angle, the gradient adaption refines these high pressure regions around
the shock and nose of the airfoil. Considering that this particular analysis is an
inviscid analysis, gradient adaptation is sufficient to refine the results as wave drag
is the only contributor to the total drag in such analysis.
51
Figure 36: 1st (left), 2nd (middle) and 3rd (right) grid refinement by gradient
adaptation for inviscid flow over NACA 0012 airfoil at Mach 0.8 and 2 º
angle of attack
Refinement 𝑪𝑪𝒅𝒅 change 𝑪𝑪𝒍𝒍 change

in 𝑪𝑪𝒅𝒅 in 𝑪𝑪𝒍𝒍
1st refinement 0.04075 9.6% 0.48422 19.8%
2nd refinement 0.04051 0.6% 0.50243 3.6%
3rd refinement 0.03938 2.7% 0.49891 0.7%
It is observed from Table 16 that sufficient grid independency has been achieved
for both the lift and drag coefficients.
52
3.1.3 2D Inviscid Analysis of NACA 0012 at 4 º angle of attack
0.6 0.35087 0.01381
0.7 0.26520 0.01667
0.8 0.66310 0.07940
0.9 0.43568 0.14532
1.0 0.37024 0.13265
Based on the inviscid CFD analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil at Mach numbers from 0.6
to 1.0 at 4º angle of attack, it is observed that from Mach 0.6, supersonic flow region
begins to form above the airfoil and after Mach 0.8 supersonic flow region begins to
form below the airfoil as well. At Mach 0.6 a thin line of supersonic region forms
above the airfoil (see Figure 40 below) and unlike the airfoil at 2º, the supersonic flow
region does not form below the airfoil until after Mach 0.8 (see Figure 41 below).
These supersonic regions are terminated by shocks which bring the flow back to
subsonic velocities. With increasing Mach number these supersonic flow regions grow
and the terminating shocks become stronger.
53
0.6(left), Mach 0.7(right) and 4deg angle of attack.
0.8(left), Mach 0.9(right) and 4deg angle of attack
54
1.0 and 4deg angle of attack
Mach 0.6(left), Mach 0.7(right) and 4 º angle of attack
55
Mach 0.8(left), Mach 0.9(right) and 4 º angle of attack
3.1.3.2 Grid Refinement study
Grid refinement is done by gradient adaptation, which identifies high pressure

regions above the specified threshold for this specific model setup and refines the
cells around this region. Three gradient adaptations were done by reducing the static
pressure threshold consecutively. In this particular case of Mach 0.8 at 4 º angle of
attack, the shockwaves are formed only on the upper surface of the airfoil and thus
gradient adaption refines the mesh around this shock. Since this particular analysis
is an inviscid analysis, gradient adaptation is sufficient to refine the results as wave
drag is the only contributor to the total drag in such analysis.
56
Figure 42: 1st (left), 2nd (middle) and 3rd (right) grid refinement of NACA 0012 airfoil
for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 4º angle of attack.
Mesh Refine 𝑪𝑪𝒅𝒅 change 𝑪𝑪𝒍𝒍 change

in 𝑪𝑪𝒅𝒅 in 𝑪𝑪𝒍𝒍
Coarse 0.07940 0.66310
1st refinement 0.10051 21% 0.88183 24.8%
2nd refinement 0.10140 0.88% 0.90676 2.74%
3rd refinement 0.10134 0.06% 0.91239 0.62%
From Table 18 above, it is observed that sufficient grid independency has been
achieved for both the lift and drag coefficient for inviscid analysis of NACA 0012
airfoil at Mach 0.8 and 4º angle of attack.
57
3.2 3D Inviscid Analysis of wavy and straight leading edge
wings based on NACA 0012 airfoil
In the 3D inviscid analysis, the original mesh was processed using the inviscid model.
Accurate results for lift and drag coefficient were obtained by gradient adaptation,
which is refining the grids at the locations of higher pressure, until the lift and drag
coefficient achieve significant grid independency. Gradient adaptation is sufficient to
produce accurate results, as wave drag is the only drag on an infinite wing in an
inviscid flow. Subsequent gradient adaptations by reducing the pressure threshold
were done until significant grid independency is reached.
3.2.1 3D Inviscid Analysis of wavy and straight leading edge wings based
on NACA 0012 airfoil at Mach 0.8 and 0 º angle of attack
Table 19: Results of drag and lift coefficient for inviscid analysis of straight and wavy
leading edge wings based on NACA 0012 airfoil at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle
of attack.
Mesh 𝑪𝑪𝑫𝑫 𝑪𝑪𝑳𝑳

Refine
Straight Change wavy Change Straight Change wavy Change

in 𝑪𝑪𝒅𝒅 in 𝑪𝑪𝒅𝒅 in 𝑪𝑪𝒍𝒍 in 𝑪𝑪𝒍𝒍
Original 0.01210 0.01543 0.00814 0.00764

mesh
Refine 1 0.00956 20.98% 0.01255 18.69% 0.00345 57.6% 0.00180 57.55%
Refine 2 0.00953 0.3% 0.01036 17.46% 0.00302 12.5% 0.00713 296.25%
Refine 3 0.01032 0.29% 0.00516 27.6%
58
Table 19 above suggests that after achieving significant grid independency for the
drag coefficient of both the wings, at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of attack the wavy leading
edge wing has about 7.63% higher drag than the straight leading edge wing. Grid
independency could not be achieved for lift coefficient, but since the numerical values
of the lift coefficient are negligible in addition to our knowledge that a symmetrical
infinite wing at 0 º angle of attack produces zero lift, it does not hamper our results.
leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach
0.8 and 0º angle of attack.
59
Figure 44: Contours of static pressure over the surface for a 1m section of an infinite
span straight leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for an inviscid
flow at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of attack.
60
0.8 and 0º angle of attack. The waviness in the contours observed here are
due to the wavy leading edge
Figure 47: Contours of static pressure over the surface of a 1m section of an infinite
span wavy leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for an inviscid
flow at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of attack. The waviness in the contours are
seen here due to the wavy leading edge.
61
From the inviscid CFD analysis of infinite wing with straight and wavy leading edge
at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of attack, the comparison of results from the inviscid CFD
analysis of infinite wing with straight leading edge and 2D inviscid airfoil results in
approximately equivalent drag coefficient. Since 2D airfoil is physically the same as
infinite wing, these results are expected. However, comparing the infinite wing with
wavy leading edge with that of the straight leading edge we get results that are in
contradiction with our hypothesis. In particular, contrary to our hypothesis, the
infinite wing with wavy leading edge results in marginally increased drag and by
examining the contours of pressure of both the wave sections we can observe that
the wavy leading edge does not result in wavy shock wave though the contours of
pressure have wavy regions up to the shock wave.
Comparing the static pressure distribution over both the wings in Figures 43, 44, 46
and 47, it is observed that the straight leading wing has higher minimum and
maximum static pressure compared to that of the wavy leading edge wing. Also, it is
observed that the maximum Mach number attained in the flow over a wavy leading
edge wing is higher than that of the straight leading edge wing as seen in Figure 45
and 48 above. This higher maximum Mach number attained is directly related to the
lower minimum static pressure which is positioned just before the shock wave in the
supersonic region. Similarly, comparing the max velocity flow region of straight
62
leading edge wing with that of the wavy leading edge wing in Figure 49 and 50 below,
it is observable that the max velocity of the flow is significantly higher for a wavy
leading edge compared to that of the straight leading edge. Also, the flow region
under these max velocities are also higher in a wavy compared to the straight leading
edge. This is the reason for the increased wave drag in case of wavy leading edge
wing compared to that of the straight leading edge wing. Thus the wavy leading edge
actually results in increased wave drag as opposed to our hypothesis of decreased
wave drag.
Figure 49: Distribution of flow with max Mach numbers in the supersonic flow region
over a 1m section of an infinite span straight leading edge wing based on
NACA 0012 airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of attack.
63
over a 1m section of an infinite span wavy leading edge based on NACA
0012 airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of attack.
on NACA 0012 airfoil at 2º angle of attack
wavy leading edge wings based on NACA 0012 airfoil at Mach 0.8 and 2º
angle of attack.

Refine
Straight Change wavy Change Straight Change wavy Change

in 𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑 in 𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑 in 𝐶𝐶𝑙𝑙 in 𝐶𝐶𝑙𝑙
Original 0.03966 0.04170 0.48242 0.42460

mesh
Refine 0.03812 3.88% 0.04084 2.06% 0.48544 0.62% 0.47813 11.19%

1
64
Refine 0.03809 0.09% 0.03779 7.48% 0.49297 1.53% 0.45990 3.81%
2
Refine 0.039506 4.35% 0.48508 5.19%

3
The results in Table 20 above indicate that after achieving significant grid
independency for the drag coefficient of both the wings, at Mach 0.8 and 2º angle of
attack, the wavy leading edge wing has about 3.60% higher drag than the straight
leading edge wing. After achieving grid independency for the lift coefficients of both
the wings the wavy leading edge wing has about 1.6% lower lift. This results in the
straight leading edge wing having a lift to drag ratio of 12.942 and wavy leading edge
having a lift to drag ratio of 12.279, which translates to the wavy leading edge wing
having 5% lesser lift to drag ratio than straight leading edge wing under respective
conditions.
65
infinite span straight leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for an
inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 2º angle of attack. The picture in right
displays the contours from minimum static pressure at the top surface of
wing to the maximum static pressure at the top surface of the wing.
Figure 53: Contours of static pressure over the bottom surface of a 1m section of an
displays the contours from minimum static pressure at the bottom surface
of wing to the maximum static pressure at the bottom surface of the wing.
66
67
infinite span wavy leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for an
displays the contours from minimum static pressure at the top surface to
the maximum static pressure at the top surface.
to the maximum static pressure at the bottom surface.
68
At Mach 0.8 and 2º angle of attack, the drag coefficient of wavy leading edge wing is
marginally higher and the lift coefficient is marginally lower than the straight leading
edge wing. As seen in Figure 51 and 55 above, the straight leading edge has higher
minimum and maximum static pressure over the wing compared to that of the wavy
leading edge. The minimum static pressure over the wing in this case occurs inside
the supersonic flow region just before the shockwave. This minimum pressure over
the wing corresponds to the wave drag and lower the minimum static pressure, higher
will be the wave drag. Since the wavy leading edge wing has a lower minimum static
pressure compared to that of the straight leading edge wing, this results in increased
drag. By comparing the minimum static pressure at the bottom surface of the wing,
it is observed that the wavy leading edge has lower minimum static pressure at the
bottom surface of the wing too (see Figure 53 and 57). This may be the reason for
reduced lift in wavy leading edge wing as compared to straight leading edge wing,
despite the fact that there is a lower minimum static pressure at the top surface of
the wavy leading edge wing compared to that of the straight leading edge wing which
should result in production of additional lift. The lower static pressure at the top
surface of the wavy leading edge wing may be further verified by the higher max
Mach number of the flow in the supersonic region compared to the straight leading
edge. This is shown in Figure 54 and 58.
69
over a 1m section of an infinite span wavy leading edge wing based on
70
on NACA 0012 airfoil at 4º angle of attack
wavy leading edge wings based on NACA 0012 airfoil at Mach 0.8 and 4º
angle of attack.

Refine
Straight Change Wavy Change Straight Change wavy Change

Original 0.09909 0.09594 0.88380 0.78855
mesh
Refine 1 0.09894 0.16% 0.09947 3.55% 0.89242 0.97% 0.86022 8.33%
Refine 2 0.09927 0.33% 0.10001 0.54% 0.89757 0.57% 0.87774 2.00%
Table 21 above, shows that after achieving significant grid independency for the drag
coefficient of both the wings at Mach 0.8 and 4 º angle of attack, the wavy leading
edge wing has about 0.74% higher drag than the straight leading edge wing. In
addition, after achieving grid independency for the lift coefficients of both the wings
the wavy leading edge wing has about 2.2% lower lift. This translates into a lift to
drag ratio of 9.042 for the straight leading edge wing and 8.776 for the wavy leading
edge wing, which then translates to wavy leading edge wing having 2.9% lesser lift to
drag ratio than straight leading edge wing for respective conditions.
71
inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 4º of attack. The picture in right displays the
contours from minimum static pressure at the top surface to the maximum
static pressure at the top surface.
72
top the maximum static pressure at the bottom surface
edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and
4º angle of attack.
73
the maximum static pressure at the top surface.
74
the maximum static pressure at the bottom surface.
Similar to the inviscid analysis at Mach 0.8 and 2º angle of attack, the inviscid analysis
at Mach 0.8 and 4º angle of attack results in marginally increased drag and marginally
decreased lift in the case of wavy leading edge wing compared to that of the straight
leading edge wing. Also similar to the analysis at 2º, the analysis at 4º results in lower
75
maximum and minimum static pressure for wavy leading edge wing compared to that
of the straight leading edge wing. The lower minimum pressure in the wavy leading
edge wing results in increased drag for the same reasons as in the case of analysis at
2º. Additionally, the lower minimum pressure at the bottom surface of the airfoil for
a wavy leading edge wing may be the reason for the decrease in lift. But unlike lower
angles of attack, it is observed that at 4º angle of attack, the flow at the troughs of
the upper surface of the wing near the leading edge of the wing acquires the max
velocity (Mach number). In this case, the max velocity is even higher than the flow
velocity at the end of the supersonic flow region just before the shock wave which is
usually the position where the flow acquires maximum velocity in the case of straight
leading edge wing. This high flow velocity at the troughs is illustrated in Figure 70
below.
over the airfoil for a straight leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil
76
over the airfoil for a wavy leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil
3.3 2D Viscous Analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil
Similar to the 2D inviscid analysis, in the 2D viscous analysis the original mesh with
a boundary adaption to refine the mesh around the airfoil was processed using the
viscous Spalart-Allmaras model. Accurate results for lift and drag coefficient were
obtained by refining the grid by gradient adaptation and Boundary adaption. Gradient
adaption refines the grids at the locations of higher pressure and boundary adaption
refines the grid near the surface of the airfoil to take into account the boundary layer
effects on the flow. The refining is done until the lift and drag coefficient achieves
significant grid independency. Subsequent gradient adaptations by reducing the
pressure threshold were done until significant grid independency is reached.
3.3.1 2D Viscous Analysis of NACA 0012 at 0 º angle of attack
77
Table 22: Results of drag and lift coefficient at various Mach numbers for 2D viscous
analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil at 0º angle of attack.
Mach no 𝑪𝑪𝒅𝒅 𝑪𝑪𝒍𝒍
0.6 0.00974 0.00019
0.7 0.01005 0.00031
0.8 0.01779 0.00027
0.9 0.11665 0.00033
1.0 0.11186 0.00010
It is observed from the Table 22 above that there is a steep increase in drag with
increase in Mach number. This is due to the wave drag. In a viscous flow in addition
to the wave drag, viscous drag and form drag are present in our case of an infinite
wing which is observed by the drag coefficients in viscous case (from Table 22) with
the drag coefficients in inviscid case (from Table 13).
Figure 71: Contours of static pressure of viscous flow over NACA 0012 airfoil at Mach
0.6(left), Mach 0.7(right) and 0º angle of attack
78
0.8(left), Mach 0.9(right) and 0º angle of attack.
1 and 0º angle of attack
Similar to the inviscid CFD analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil, the viscous analysis using
Spalart- Allmaras at Mach numbers 0.6 to 1.0, results in the formation of supersonic
flow regions above and below the airfoil after Mach 0.7. These supersonic regions are
terminated by shocks which bring the flow back to subsonic velocities. With
increasing Mach number these supersonic flow regions grow and the terminating
79
shocks become stronger. At Mach one we have shock waves at the nose and tip of
the airfoil as the entire airfoil has attained supersonic velocity. The significant
observable difference between the viscous and inviscid analysis is the interaction of
shock wave and boundary layer which can be clearly seen in the Figure 74 below. In
Figure 74, the shock in an inviscid flow is normal to the surface at the surface of the
airfoil whereas in a viscous it appears a bit smeared or dented. This is the lambda
shock formed at the surface.
Figure 74: comparison of contours of static pressure of viscous (left) and inviscid
(right) flow over NACA 0012 airfoil at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of attack
In the viscous analysis, the original mesh is the same as the one used for inviscid
case but with a boundary adaption to take into consideration the viscous effects in
the flow. Further refinement of grid is done by gradient adaption to consider the
effect of shock waves and boundary adaption to consider the effects of viscosity until
grid independency is achieved.
Table 23: Grid refinement study of 2D viscous analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil at
Refinement 𝑪𝑪𝒅𝒅 change 𝑪𝑪𝒍𝒍 change
Refine 1 0.01669 6.18% 0.00088 69.32%
80
Refine 2 0.01657 0.72% 0.00026 70.45%
Refine 3 0.01620 2.23% 0.00017 34.61%
Table 23 shows that significant grid independency has been achieved for the above
specified case.
3.4 3D Viscous analysis of wavy and straight leading edge

wings based on NACA 0012 airfoil
Similar to the 3D inviscid analysis, in the 3D viscous analysis, the original mesh with
a boundary adaption to refine the mesh around the wing was processed using the
viscous Spalart-Allmaras model. Accurate results for lift and drag coefficient were
obtained by refining the grid by gradient adaptation and Boundary adaption. Gradient
adaption refines the grids at the locations of high pressure and boundary adaption
refines the grid near the surface of the wing to take into account the boundary layer
effects on the flow. The refining is done until the lift and drag coefficient achieves
significant grid independency. Subsequent gradient adaptations by reducing the
pressure threshold were done until significant grid independency is reached.
3.4.1 3D Viscous analysis of wavy and straight leading edge wings based
on NACA 0012 airfoil at 0 º angle of attack
Table 24: Results of drag and lift coefficient for viscous analysis of straight and wavy
of attack.
Refinement 𝑪𝑪𝑫𝑫 𝑪𝑪𝑳𝑳
Change Change Change Change

Straight Wavy Straight Wavy
Original 0.01786 0.01754 0.00201 0.00606

mesh
81
3.13% 1.42% 18.4% 37.62%
Refine 1 0.01730 0.01729 0.00164 0.00378
1.16% 1.16% 3.53% 29.08%

Refine 2 0.01710 0.01709 0.00170 0.00533
0.41% 1.11% 2.30% 10.51%

Refine 3 0.01703 0.01690 0.00174 0.00477
From Table 24 it is observed that significant grid independency has been achieved
for the drag coefficient. The drag coefficient of wavy leading edge is 0.76% lesser
than that of the straight leading edge. However, this difference is marginal and
negligible that it cannot be considered. Grid independency could not be achieved for
lift coefficient. Nonetheless, since the numerical values are negligible in additional to
our knowledge that a symmetrical airfoil produces zero lift at 0º angle of attack, it
does not hinder our analysis. Comparing viscous analysis results from Table 24 with
inviscid analysis results from Table 23, a significant increase in the drag coefficients
in both the wings can be observed. Additionally, the difference between both the
wings has reduced greatly. In fact, the wavy leading edge wing has produced
marginally lesser drag coefficient than that of the straight leading edge contrary to
inviscid analysis where the wavy leading edge resulted in significantly higher drag
coefficient than that of the straight leading edge. This may be due to the wavy leading
82
edge resulting in reduced flow separation compared to that of the straight leading
edge.
leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for a viscous flow at Mach
span straight leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for a viscous
flow at Mach 0.8 and 0 º angle of attack.
83
84
span wavy leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for a viscous
As in the inviscid case, the viscous case also shows that wavy leading edge wing has
a lower minimum static pressure compared to the straight leading edge wing from
Figure 75, 76, 78 and 79 above. Yet, surprisingly, this does not result in a higher
85
drag. Observing the max velocity flow in both the cases from the Figure 81 and 82,
it can be seen that although the max velocity of the flow in supersonic region of a
wavy leading edge wing is higher than that of the straight leading edge wing, the
region of max velocity appears almost equal or lesser than that of the straight leading
edge region. In addition, wavy leading edge wings are known to reduce separation,
which might be the reason for the reduced drag of wavy leading edge wings in this
case.
NACA 0012 airfoil for a viscous flow at Mach 0.8 and 0 º angle of attack.
86
NACA 0012 airfoil for a viscous flow at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of attack.
3.4.2 3D Viscous analysis of wavy and straight leading edge wings based
on NACA 0012 airfoil at 2 º angle of attack
of attack.

Refining
Straight Change Wavy Change Straight Change Wavy Change

Original 0.03915 0.03914 0.39708 0.38948

mesh
Refine 1 0.03882 0.84% 0.03981 1.68% 0.40148 1.09% 0.39928 2.45%
Refine 2 0.03922 1.01% 0.04059 1.92% 0.40769 1.52% 0.41250 3.20%
87
Table 25 above indicates that the drag coefficient of the wavy leading edge wing is
about 3.38% higher, and that the lift coefficient 1.17% higher than that of the straight
leading edge wing after grid independency is achieved. This translates into a lift to
drag ratio of 10.16 for the wavy leading edge wing and 10.40 for the straight leading
edge wing. When compared to the inviscid case from Table 20, it can be observed
that the drag of both the wavy leading edge wing and straight leading edge wing is
significantly reduced. This may be due to the reduced flow separation on the wavy
leading edge wing in viscous flow compared to that of the straight leading edge wing.
88
Figure 84: Contours of static pressure over the top surface of 1m section of an infinite
span straight leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for a viscous
flow at Mach 0.8 and 2º angle of attack. The picture in right displays the
infinite span straight leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for a
viscous flow at Mach 0.8 and 2 º angle of attack. The picture in right
89
90
Figure 88: Contours of static pressure over the top surface of 1m section of an infinite
span wavy leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for a viscous
flow at Mach 0.8 and 2 º angle of attack. The picture in right displays the
infinite span wavy leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for a
viscous flow at Mach 0.8 and 2 º angle of attack. The picture in right
91
As in the previous cases, the viscous analysis of both the wings resulted in the
minimum static pressure over the wing being lesser in the case of wavy leading edge
as compared to that of the straight leading edge which is observed in the Figures 84,
85, 88 and 89 above. This lower minimum static pressure corresponds to higher wave
drag, as the recompression shock is stronger in this case. Also, comparing the max
velocity flow in the supersonic region from Figure 91 below, it is observed that the
area under the max velocity flow is higher in the case of wavy leading edge compared
to that of the straight leading edge which corresponds with decreased static pressure.
92
over a 1m section of an infinite span straight (left) and wavy (right) leading
edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for a viscous flow at Mach 0.8 and
2 º angle of attack.
Chapter 4 Further Analyses
Since our analysis of wavy leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil at Mach 0.8
and very low angles of attack failed to produce significant positive results, further
inviscid analysis of the wavy leading edge based on NACA 0012 airfoil at Mach 1.2
93
and 0 degree angle of attack, and wavy leading edge wing based on a more suitable
transonic airfoil ‘KC-135 BL200.76’ airfoil from the family of Boeing KC-135 transonic
airfoils at Mach 0.8 and very low angles of attack which is from 0 degree to 4 degree
is carried out to check if there is any positive outcomes from it.
4.1 3D Inviscid analysis of straight and wavy leading edge

wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil at Mach 1.2 and 0º
angle of attack
of attack.

Refining

in 𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑 in 𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑 in 𝐶𝐶𝑙𝑙 in𝐶𝐶𝑙𝑙
Original 0.09865 0.10016 0.00379 0.00649

mesh
Refine 1 0.09772 0.9% 0.09752 2.63% 0.00656 42.23% 0.00798 18.67%
Refine 2 0.09653 1.2% 0.09668 0.86% 0.00343 47.71% 0.00663 16.91%
From Table 27, it can be observed that the drag coefficient of wavy leading edge is
0.1% higher than that of the straight leading edge wing after grid independency has
been achieved. This margin is negligible and therefore both of the wings can be
considered to have the same drag coefficient. Grid independency could not be
achieved for lift coefficient, but since the numerical values obtained are negligible, in
94
addition to our knowledge that lift coefficient is zero at 0º angle of attack for a
symmetric airfoil, it does not affect our analysis.
span straight leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for an inviscid
95
Mach 1.2 and 0 º angle of attack.
96
span wavy leading edge wing based on NACA 0012 airfoil for an inviscid
Mach 1.2 and 0º angle of attack.
From the inviscid analysis of the straight leading edge wing and wavy leading edge
wing at Mach 1.2 and 0º angle of attack , it is observed that bow shock is formed in
both the cases and the contours of the bow shock in the case of wavy leading wing
does not have any waviness. Also the wavy leading edge wing resulted in almost the
97
same drag as that of the straight leading edge, though the max velocity of the flow
around the airfoil is higher for a wavy leading edge wing compared to straight leading
edge wing as seen in Figure 98 and 99. The max velocity for the above described flow
is experienced in the tail of both the wings.
98
4.2 3D Inviscid analysis of straight and wavy leading edge
wing based on KC-135 BL200.76 airfoil
KC-135 BL200.76 airfoil at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of attack
wavy leading edge wings based on KC-135 BL200.76 airfoil at Mach 0.8
and 0º angle of attack
𝑪𝑪𝑫𝑫 𝑪𝑪𝑳𝑳
Mesh
Refining

Original 0.02657 0.02087 0.34969 0.33200

mesh
Refine 1 0.02228 16.15% 0.02056 1.49% 0.33758 3.46% 0.33579 1.13%
Refine 2 0.02053 7.85% 0.01947 5.3% 0.33396 1.07% 0.32331 3.71%
Refine 3 0.02109 2.66% 0.33939 1.60%
After significant grid independency has been achieved the drag coefficient of the wavy
leading edge is 7.6% lower than that of the straight leading edge and the lift
coefficient is 4.7% lower than that of the straight leading edge wing as seen in Table
28. This translates into a lift to drag ratio of 16.61 for the wavy leading edge wing
and 16.09 for the straight leading edge wing.
99
inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 0 º angle of attack.
transonic airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 0 º angle of attack.
100
inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of attack.
101
infinite span wavy leading edge wing based on KC-135 BL200.76 transonic
airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of attack. The picture
in the right displays the contours from the minimum static pressure at the
top surface to the maximum static pressure at the bottom surface.
bottom surface to the maximum static pressure at the bottom surface.
102
inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 0 º angle of attack.
As in the previous cases, the wavy leading edge results in lower minimum static
pressure over the wing (see Figures 100 and 103 above). This lower minimum static
pressure corresponds with the maximum velocity achieved in the supersonic flow
region as seen in Figures 102 and 106 above. Yet, surprisingly, the wavy leading edge
produces lower drag than the straight leading edge. This may be due to the
supersonic regions formed as triangular areas below the wavy leading edge wing as
opposed to rectangular area in straight leading edge wing as seen In Figures 102 and
106, thereby producing oblique shocks in the case of wavy leading edge compared
to the normal shocks in the straight leading edge.
103
KC-135 BL200.76 airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of
attack.
over a 1m section of an infinite span wavy leading edge wing based on KC-
135 BL200.76 airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 0º angle of attack.
104
Mesh
Refining

original 0.063278 0.059231 0.73419 0.71768

mesh
Refine 1 0.058894 6.93% 0.060144 1.63% 0.71880 2.10% 0.73123 1.89%
Refine 2 0.059587 1.16% 0.059161 1.63% 0.73648 2.4% 0.72601 0.71%
From Table 29, it can be observed that after significant grid independency has been
achieved, the wavy leading edge wing has 0.7% lesser drag coefficient and 1.4 % lesser
lift coefficient. This translates into a lift to drag ratio of 12.36 for the straight leading
edge wing and 12.27 for a wavy leading edge wing.
105
transonic airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 2º angle of attack. The
picture in the right displays the contours from the minimum static pressure
at the top surface to the maximum static pressure at the bottom surface.
106
107
108
airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 2 º angle of attack. The picture
Figure 116: Regions of supersonic flow over a 1m section of an infinite wavy straight
As experienced in the previous analyses the wavy leading edge acquires a lower
minimum static pressure and higher maximum flow velocity in the supersonic region
(Figures 109, 112, 113 and 116 above). Also the wavy leading edge acquires a
marginally lower minimum static pressure at the bottom surface than that of the
straight leading edge wing as seen in Figures 111 and 115.
109
over a 1m section of an infinite span straight (left) and wavy (right) leading
edge wing based on KC-135 BL200.76 airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach
Mesh
Refining

Original 0.11894 0.11383 1.0454 1.0083

mesh
110
Refine 1 0.11738 1.31% 0.11549 1.44% 1.0429 0.24% 1.0312 2.23%
Refine 2 0.11602 1.16% 0.11686 1.17% 1.0435 0.06% 1.0456 1.44%
From Table 30 it is observed that the wavy leading edge results in 0.72% higher drag
coefficient and 0.21% higher lift coefficient as compared to that of the straight leading
edge. The lift to drag ratio of wavy leading edge is 8.994 and that of the straight
leading edge is 8.947. The difference is marginal and negligible.
111
112
straight leading edge wing based on KC-135 BL200.76 transonic airfoil
113
airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 4 º angle of attack. The picture
114
straight leading edge wing based on KC-135 BL200.76 transonic airfoil
KC-135 BL200.76 airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 4º angle of
attack.
115
over a 1m section of an infinite span and wavy leading edge wing based
on KC-135 BL200.76 airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8 and 4º angle
of attack.
116
Chapter 5 Conclusion
Despite the fact that the wavy leading edge did not result in wavy shocks for the
transonic flow over symmetrical NACA 0012 airfoil, in the case of inviscid analysis of
wavy leading edge wing based on transonic KC-135 BL200.76 airfoil at MACH 0.8 and
0° angle of attack, triangular regions of supersonic flow were found under the airfoil
which should terminate in an oblique shock. These specific conditions resulted in
substantial drag reduction. Although there was a loss of lift accompanying it, the
lift to drag ratio was still higher than that of the straight leading edge wing. In
addition to that, it was found that viscous drag was reduced by wavy leading edge
wings even in a transonic flow from the analyses of NACA 0012 airfoil.
From inviscid analysis of a straight and wavy leading edge wing based on symmetrical
NACA 0012 airfoil, it was clear that the drag coefficient is slightly higher, and lift
coefficient is slightly lower for a wavy leading edge compared to that of the straight
leading edge at low angles of attack. This resulted in lower lift to drag ratio for a wavy
leading edge wing compared to that of the straight leading edge wing. Contrary to
our assumption, this indicates that the wavy leading edge results in an increased
wave drag. Nevertheless, the viscous analysis results indicated that the difference
between the drag coefficient, lift coefficient and lift to drag ratio are negligible, which
in turn predicts that the wavy leading reduces the drag due to separation even at
transonic speeds.
The Inviscid analysis of wavy leading edge wing and straight leading edge wing based
on transonic KC-135 BL200.76 airfoil at low angles of attack resulted in negligible
difference in drag and lift coefficients which cannot be taken into consideration.
However, in the case of such a wavy leading edge at Mach 0.8 and 0° angle of attack,
there was significant drag decrease and marginal increase of lift to drag. In general,
there was no significant increase in wave drag for a wavy leading edge wing based on
such an airfoil at other angles of attack.
In all the analyses, it was observed that the wavy leading edge resulted in lower
minimum static pressure over the wing, lower minimum static pressure at the top
surface and lower minimum pressure at the bottom surface when compared to that
of the straight leading edge wing. The max velocity acquired in the supersonic flow
region was higher for a wavy leading edge wing when compared to that of the straight
leading edge wing.
117
Chapter 6
Chapter 6 Future work
From the results of viscous analysis of the wavy and straight leading edge wing based
on NACA 0012 airfoil, the wavy leading edge resulted in lesser viscous drag.
Therefore, further analyses are needed to examine the geometry of the wave which
produces maximum drag reduction and whether this geometry results in considerable
increase in wave drag.
The study on wavy and straight leading edge wing based on transonic KC-135
BL200.76 airfoil at transonic speeds showed no significant difference in drag, lift and
lift to drag ratio between both the wings. Furthermore, the viscous analysis of wings
based on NACA 0012 airfoil showed that viscous drag is reduced in the case of a wavy
leading edge wing. Therefore, further viscous analyses of wavy leading edge wing
based on transonic KC-135 BL200.76 airfoil should be carried out to see if the viscous
drag is reduced in such a case as well, knowing that the wave drag is almost
unchanged this would result in reduced net drag at transonic speeds.
As triangular regions of supersonic flow were found under the wavy leading edge
wing based on KC-135 BL200.76 airfoil which could have ended in oblique shocks.
This could be further examined and experimented to maximise drag reduction.
118
List of References
List of References
Anderson, J. D. (1995), Computational fluid dynamics: the basics with applications,

London: McGraw-Hill.
Anderson, J. (2017), Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, 6th Edition, New York: McGraw-

Hill.
Allen, H. J. and Eggers, A. J., (1958), A Study of the Motion and Aerodynamic Heating
of Ballistic Missiles Entering the Earth's Atmosphere at High Supersonic Speeds, NACA.
Berton, J. J. and Cummings, R. M. (2009), Aerodynamics for Engineers, 5th Edition,

London: Pearson
Houghton, E. L., Carpenter, P. W., Collicott, S. H., and Valentine, D. T. (2013),

Aerodynamics for Engineering Students, 6th Edition, London: Elsevier.
Lin, Y., Lam, K., Zou, L. and Liu, Y. (2013), ‘Numerical study of flows past airfoils with
wavy surfaces’, Journal of Fluids and Structures, 36, pp. 136-148.
McGraw-Hill (2004), Concise Encyclopaedia of Physics, 1st Edition, McGraw-Hill

Professional Publishing.
Miklosovic, D., Murray, M., Howle, L. and Fish, F. (2004), ‘Leading-edge tubercles
delay stall on humpback whale (Megatpera novaengliae) flippers’, Physics of Fluids,
16 (5), pp. 39-40.
Moulden, T. H. (1984), Fundamentals of transonic flow, New York: Wiley.
Serson, D., and Meneghini, J. (2015), ‘Numerical Study of Wings with Wavy Leading
and Trailing Edges’, Procedia IUTAM, 14 (1), PP. 563-569.
Stinton, D. (2001), The design of the Aeroplane, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell
Science.
U. S Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration (2003), Pilot’s

Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, Oklahoma: Airman Testing Standards Branch.
U.S Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration and Flight

Standard Service (2004), Airplane flying handbook, Washington: Aviation Supplies
and Academics.
119
Zhang, M.M., Wang, G.F. and Xu, J.Z. (2013), 'Aerodynamic Control of Low-Reynolds-
Number Airfoil with Leading-Edge Protuberances', AIAA Journal, 51(8), pp. 1960-
1971.
Yoon, H., Hung, P., Jung, P. and Kim, M. (2011), ‘Effect of the wavy leading edge on
hydrodynamic characteristics for flows around low aspect ratio wing’, Computers and
Fluids, 49, pp. 276-289.
120
List of References
121

Transonic Analysis of Wavy Leading Edge

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Transonic Analysis of Wavy Leading Edge

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

EFFECT OF WAVY LEADING EDGE ON LIFT AND DRAG OF A WING AT

Supervised by: Dr Jae Wook Kim

JAYA VIGNESH MADANA GOPAL

MSc Aerodynamics and Computation

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENT

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES

5. I have acknowledged all main sources of help;

7. None of this work has been published before submission.

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ i

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................... 3

1.2.1 Pressure drag .......................................................................... 4

1.3 Shock waves - Normal and Oblique ................................................. 7

1.8.1 Equations for viscous flow (Navier-Stokes equations) ............. 18

1.8.1.1 Continuity equations ....................................................... 18

1.8.2 Equations for inviscid flow (Euler equations) .......................... 20

1.8.2.1 Continuity equation ......................................................... 20

1.9 Research objectives ...................................................................... 21

Chapter 2 Experimental Setup ................................................................................. 23

2.1 CFD Software ................................................................................ 23

2.2 Wing geometry ............................................................................. 23

2.3.1 Method of project execution .................................................. 24

2.3.2.1 Geometry ........................................................................ 25

2.3.3 3D Inviscid analysis of straight and wavy leading edge wing

2.3.3.1 Geometry ........................................................................ 29

2.3.4 2D Viscous Analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil .............................. 35

2.3.4.1 Model setup .................................................................... 35

2.3.5 3D viscous analysis of straight and wavy leading edge wing

2.3.5.1 Model setup .................................................................... 38

Chapter 3 Results: Inviscid analysis ..................................................................... 43

3.1 2D Inviscid Analysis of NACA 0012 .............................................. 43

3.1.1 2D Inviscid Analysis of NACA 0012 at 0 º angle of attack....... 43

3.1.1.1 Lift and Drag coefficient study ........................................ 43

3.1.2 2D Inviscid Analysis of NACA 0012 at 2º angle of attack........ 48

3.1.2.1 Lift and Drag coefficient study ........................................ 48

3.1.2.2 Grid refinement study ..................................................... 51

3.1.3 2D Inviscid Analysis of NACA 0012 at 4 º angle of attack....... 53

3.1.3.1 Lift and Drag coefficient study ........................................ 53

3.2.1 3D Inviscid Analysis of wavy and straight leading edge wings

3.3 2D Viscous Analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil .................................... 77

3.3.1 2D Viscous Analysis of NACA 0012 at 0 º angle of attack ...... 77

3.3.1.1 Lift and Drag coefficient study ........................................ 77

3.4.1 3D Viscous analysis of wavy and straight leading edge wings

Chapter 4 Further Analyses....................................................................................... 93

4.2.1 3D Inviscid analysis of straight and wavy leading edge wing

Chapter 5 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 117

Table 2: Boundary conditions implemented on 2D inviscid analysis of NACA 0012

Table 5: Boundary conditions implemented on 3D inviscid analysis of straight and

Table 8: Boundary conditions implemented on 2D viscous analysis of NACA 0012

Table 9: Solver setup for 2D viscous analysis of NACA 0012 airfoil................ 37

Table 11: Boundary conditions implemented on 3D viscous analysis of straight and

Figure 1: Streamlines on a finite wing (Anderson, 2017, p. 427) ...................... 4

Figure 2: Wing tip vortices (Anderson, 2017, p.428) ........................................ 5

Figure 4: (a) Displacement thickness of boundary (hatched area) representing an

Figure 7: Transonic flow pattern (U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Aviation

Figure 9: Variation of drag coefficient with Mach number (U.S Department of

Figure 10: Schematic of the shock-wave-boundary-layer interaction (Anderson,

Figure 16: Wing geometry ............................................................................. 23

Figure 18: Completed 2d mesh for NACA 0012 airfoil ................................... 26

Figure 20: 3d model of wavy leading edge wing of span 1m .......................... 30

Figure 24: Unstructured mesh generated for the 3D domain. ........................ 31

Figure 100: Contours of static pressure over a 1m section of an infinite span

Figure 102: Regions of supersonic flow over a 1m section of an infinite span

based on KC-135 BL200.76 airfoil for an inviscid flow at Mach 0.8